Transcript of the part of the May 6, 2005
Finance Control Board meeting
dealing with matters other than the management study of the police department.
Issues include: city budgets for this year and next year, the development of program-based budgets for all city departments, city bond and capital issues, tax collections, abandoned properties, demolitions, sidewalk school construction, and school contract negotiations.
FINANCE CONTROL BOARD MEETING, May 6, 2005
Present: Chairman Alan LeBovidge, Mayor Charles V. Ryan, City Council President Tim Rooke, Thomas Trimarco, Executive Director Phil Puccia, Deputy Executive Director David Panagore, City Clerk Bill Metzger
Alan LeBovidge: I’d like to call the meeting of the Springfield Finance Control Board to order and just for the record indicate that after we have this meeting we’re going to have an executive session, and we won’t be coming back from that session. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes, technically, of last two meetings, because the minutes of the January 31 meeting had to have a slight revision, and then there’s the March 5 meeting... So, do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the last two meetings?
*MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Budgets for FY05 and 06; long-term debt from FY05
AL: I’ve asked Phil Puccia and Mary to kind of give us an update of the budget, so we know, financially, where we’re going for the...the end of the fiscal year is coming up before too long, and if we could talk about that, and then talk about the 06 budget process, then you know...I know it’s not done, but let’s...give us a feeling give us an up-date.
Philip Puccia: OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since our last get-together, our trend for the fiscal year 05 budget is still level and approximately a deficit of $21million. We have continued to utilize the revolving loan fund to make vendor payments and meet payroll on a weekly basis. Since we last met, we paid back $38million back to the state in the revolving loan fund, and we project in the remaining quarter of this fiscal year that we will borrow and pay back approximately $42million which will leave us a deficit of, again, approximately $21million as our projection right now.
AL: So that will be the outstanding loan on July 1.
PP: That will be the long-term outstanding fiscal 05 debt. OK? We have a couple of items that we’re grappling with right now within that $21million, and one of them is snow expenses in excess of $638,000 which we...
AL: More than we budgeted?
PP: More than we had budgeted for, and we’re going to try to fix it within the $21million number that I mentioned. As it relates to the fiscal 06 budget process, I‘ve asked Mary to give us an update and part of the actual schedule and the items that we’re involved in and I’d like to make two points to the board.
One is that we see our presentation of the fiscal 06 budget as an interim document. And I say that for the main...for this following main reason: we are, as you know, engaged in a variety of studies and analysis of various city departments. Much of those will not be completed prior to the development of the completion of the 06 budget so we will need to make adjustments based on those studies and implementing recommendations in those studies over the course of the fiscal year, so it will be an interim budget document. Secondly, I would like to say that we anticipate our 06...our projected 06 deficit should be substantially less than the $21million, and we are ball-parking a figure right now of approximately $12million for fiscal 06. There are still a great deal of variables, and we continue to try to manage them, but that’s what I’d like to make the board aware of right now. Having said that, I’d like Mary to walk you through some of the things that we’ve done to create a performance based budget and the process that remains until mid-June.
Development of Program Budgets for City Departments
Mary Tzambazakis: Good afternoon, gentlemen. What we’ve done is we are trying to take a line item budget and convert it into a program budget where every single city department has identified individual programs within their department and operations and metrics and the services that they provide to the community. And then what we are also doing is taking those programs and activities that they perform in the city and breaking out the actual costs of those to align the expenditures to what program activities are taking place in the city. That will give us, for the first time in the city’s history, the ability to actually understand where the individual dollars are going in personnel services in various departments, whether it’s in the fire department under the haz-mat unit, the arson unit or fire suppression, for example.
It is a very detailed process and it is a very difficult process at the present time, because of the complexity of doing the conversions. We have completed our initial first round of meetings with the departments individually in the finance office where they have prepared narratives and financial documentation and are revising that information to better align with the prior year numbers. That’s going to be on-going. Our goal is that by the week of May 13, we will have completed that initial review individually with the CFO and the financials and adjustments, and then beginning in the week [sound transmission interrupted]...should be in the budget to prepare the final budget document for submission. Our target is to prepare the budget between the week of June 3rd and the 10th, because we have to send it out for collating, and have a budget submission available by June 10 for review. That, I believe, will be submitted to the control board directly.
PP: If I could just interrupt on one point. One of the things which Mary points out which I would like to spend just a minute on is the complexity of doing this budget this way, because it’s not that this is...no one has done it like that before in the city of Springfield so it’s a significant learning curve. And, in fact, we think it’s going to take two full budget cycles—this and the next one—before we can actually have what I believe is a completely performance based budget. We’re going to be somewhere in between, but, certainly, a great deal ahead of where we were last year.
MT: And this is actually, really the first time in over eight or nine years that the department heads, themselves, have the opportunity to work on their own budgets and come back and tell us what the services are they provide and how their money should be allocated within their programs. Prior...this is actually the first time they’ve actively been involved in developing their budgets in several years, so it’s a very...it’s a learning curve for them; it’s actually an opportunity for them to tell you their story of how they operate and what they’re doing with the monies we provide them. So that’s pretty much it on the fiscal year 06 budget appropriation at this point.
PP: Any questions? Sir?
AL: No, I don’t have any. OK. Let’s move on. You got an update on city bond and capital issues?
PP: Mary’s going to walk us through that as well.
City Bond and Capital Issues
MT: Approximately seven or eight months ago, we started this very long process of analyzing our bonding and our capital project accounts. In an effort to try to clean up the accounts which haven’t been cleaned up in about twenty years, I would say. As a result, we’ve come across a number of items and a number of things that we have brought to you today to discuss and to move forward as part of this continual clean-up process.
One item is the rescission of approximately $9.1million of authorized and unissued debt to the City of Springfield. We have identified several different projects that will not be happening, have no opportunity to happen, and what we’re going to propose to the board today is to actually rescind the orders that were authorized by the City of Springfield city council, to rescind the authorizations, and then allow us to close out those accounts and take them off of our list of authorized, but unissued debt. the authorized and unissued debt limit for the City of Springfield at the present time is $137,660,000. By allowing us to rescind this number $9,134,000 will effectively reduce our authorized unissued debt to $128million, $128,526,531. Of that $128,526,531, approximately $57million of that has been issued in short term debt and is planned to be issued into long-term debt this summer.
So my request...the accounts are as follows: they were $2million that had been appropriated for the development of a baseball stadium. There were another $7milllion of authorizations for work to be done in a sewer intercept and modifications to York Street pumping station—these are associated with water sewer projects that never came off our books. There’s another $40,000 for sewer construction as well and $94,000 of debt that is part of $150,000 larger debt that was for departmental equipment for a radio tower in the police department. We’re going to...the project is...we have to figure out exactly what that project will entail and the alternative funding sources. So, at this point, those four orders can be rescinded, and the money can be extinguished from our accounts, so we no longer have that as authorized unissued debt.
AL: Let me understand. This is not money we’ve already borrowed. This is just authorization. It’s not a cash transaction.
MT: No cash transaction with this. It’s just reducing of the amount that’s authorized.
AL: It’s just an accounting....
MT: Yes, sir. I’m trying very hard to clean up any opportunities for inappropriate charging to the city’s books.
AL: For leakage of...I got you.
MT: Yes.
City Councilor Tim Rooke: Mary, could I just...Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? The $2million for the baseball stadium, I know that is something that the city council discussed in the past about rescinding, but the $7million back to 1996, why, if the money wasn’t used for the project, why wouldn’t it have been, I guess, why wouldn’t it have been turned back or should, who should have notified either the mayor or the city council or the auditor that is wasn’t used? Why...?
Mayor Charles V. Ryan: The money was never voted, was it? It’s just an authorization.
MT: The money was authorized by the city council and approximately $1,174,000 were expended, but, as the audit turned up this year with the CPAs, it turned out that that money had been paid off by the Water Sewer Commission in an adjusting entry that had to happen this fiscal year. There was an issue with respect to the collection of monies, because the City of Springfield in the collection office did collect water sewer money as well as city money, and there were issues around accounting. And, at the end of the day, there was a deal negotiated a long time ago, and it was documented, and there was also evidence that the City of Springfield had retained $1,174,000 that was really water sewer money that was never turned over, so an adjusting entry was done to adjust the account, bringing it to the full $7million which now allows us to rescind it. All of this activities were the responsibility of the CFO and the treasurer in the past. Why it happened or didn’t happen, I can’t address that. I’m just going through trying to clean it up this year.
AL: But it’s not cash.
MT: It’s not cash; it’s just an authorization. The next issue will be cash that I have.
Thomas Trimarco: Does that mean that the project is cancelled?
MT: Yeah. There will be no project. There is no project funds. It’s done. It’s either cancelled or there isn’t going to be any more going on with it.
AL: This is a clean up, this is clean up.
MT: To clean up, and the money was never bonded for and we never borrowed for it, so....
CVR: This is what you’re hoping that we will pass this?
PP: Yes. There are actually I was going to ask Mary to go through the second item. The items are actually related, those two orders that you see.
CVR: OK. Fine.
MT: This is the first order which basically just eliminates an appropriation account with no money.
There’s a second bond issue where we’ve gone through all the capital projects in the city, and for years there’s been a practice here, that, as long as there’s an appropriation account, they charge it. And nobody did anything to close out any projects that were associated with bond projects. We’ve started doing that.
I put together a formal process where we literally sat down with every single department head who had a capital project, reviewed the project. They told me that the projects were closed, and the balances available were not going to be expended any more, and I actually had them sign a certification on that. Once the certification was signed off on, I prepared a total number. Now what we’re planning to do with this is actually a reappropriation, a reversion. The money associated with these projects falls into five-year, ten-year, twenty-year term projects, so we had to break the money out.
And what we are requesting to do is to take these account balances and the appropriations, transfer them into one appropriation account called bond balances and then also transfer the corresponding cash out of our operating cash into the bond checkbook we created last year with the $13million. Because, again, this money was co-mingled like all the other monies were, so that we can clean the money out. Then what I’d like to do is come back to you gentlemen in September with the school data with the $13million and any additional. We have a total amount appropriated and in a checkbook, and then come back with projects that you would approve to say “Yes, go ahead, and these are new capital projects you have the authority to do that.”
AL: So this is real money. You want to isolate it into one account so no one can tap into it without your knowing about it. That’s different than the first one.
MT: Right.
CVR: Mary, have you reviewed what you’re suggesting here with Jim Johnson of DoR [State Department of Revenue]?
MT: No, sir, we didn’t review it with him. He’s aware that we’re setting up this bond account. This is just a normal course of business. It’s a transfer from several appropriations to one appropriation so all the money is put together, taking the money out of the cash, the operating cash, and putting it into a bond checkbook, and then coming to you folks and saying, “This is a dollar amount that you have in a bond checkbook with an appropriation account for you to go forward and decide what capital project you’d like.”
TT: Now, is this it? Is this the totality of the unexpended funds from prior bond—these are all monies from prior bond issues, whether they were five-year bonds, ten year, twenty or thirty, correct?
MT: Yes, sir.
TT: And now, is this the total?
MT: I’m going to...well, we’re fine-tuning the school accounts because...
TT: Other than the school, but I mean...
MT: I believe that’s all the general fund side, yes, sir.
TT: OK.
AL: Any other questions?
PP: So, what we’re really asking the board, then, is to adopt these two orders which I believe are 05, 01 and 02, and the clerk has them specifically. You should have copies in your package.
AL: Any other questions?
*MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
PP: Mr. Chairman, if I might just go out of order a little bit on today’s agenda. I’d like to ask David Panagore to come up and give the board a briefing on two subjects. One is tax collections, and, second, abandoned properties.
Tax Collections (prior years)
David Panagore: Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. Good Morning, board members.
In your packets you’ll find two pieces of paper, one on abandoned property efforts and the other on tax collection efforts. I’d like to start with tax collection efforts. Over the past several months, through a interdepartmental initiative led by the treasurer collector’s office involving from planning to the housing department to the assessing department, we have formed a team to work on the tax collection efforts and the related disposal of properties, so you can see this works as an entire process starting both with our tax collection efforts all the way through stabilization of our neighborhoods and dealing with our vacant properties.
Starting with our tax collection efforts, we contracted recently with JER Services to assist in our collection efforts. They’ve been on the job for about a month and a half; they’ve provided initial notices to the folks who have tax liens against their properties and those in foreclosure. We have had a very good working relationship. They’ve provided some initial estimates. They’ve been reviewing our data base and have begun providing a series of recommendations.
You’ll see the first collection efforts: currently owed is $34.2million in back taxes including interest, fees and penalties. You’ll see then a[n] estimate by JER Services based upon their experience in other communities in Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut on how they expect a return to happen on that portfolio of accounts receivable. That would be 18% or $6.25million in the first year, 40% or $12.5million in the second year, 25% or $6.25million in the third year, projected, therefore, approximately, $25million or about 73% roughly of the $34million owed. So far, since July 1 of ’04, the city has collected $7.2million in back taxes above and beyond the $34million.
Abandoned Properties
If you go to the second sheet, which is an inverted triangle, you get an idea—this is constantly changing, because the number of properties assigned constantly changes—but you see that JER’s recommendation and advice on how this will flow. Approximately 2,179 properties are in tax title. We expect that, of those, 40% or 872 accounts will pay prior to a foreclosure action in Land Court. About 60% will pay during Land Court, proceedings, about 1,300. Ten percent will not pay and will have to be foreclosed upon, and then , finally, there will be about 5% of them or 109 properties that will the city will have to do in a foreclosure process and sell. Now those are just estimates, and this will be constantly up-dated as we go along, and we will continue to update the board as we know more.
AL: What’s the reason for the 5%, just so I can understand? Why is that?
DP: Property...predominantly those are properties that are so far under water, where the debt owed on the property, the taxes and interest, is so high that the owner is going to abandon them completely, and no one will be interested in them, and, therefore, the city will have to foreclose. A property may cost $15,000, but the taxes owed on it are $250,000, and there is no chance of redeeming that property or making it economically viable.
AL: So they walk away from the property and say “It’s yours and take it.”
Tax Collections (year-to-date)
DP: Moving back on collection efforts, so far since the first month of JER’s contract, they have collected $538,363 on the city’s behalf. They are paid at approximately 7.9% is their fee, which is about $38,000. We have as part of that they have identified 68 properties that they think should go to foreclosure next month. These are owners after the initial contact they made stated that they wouldn’t make any payments.
Also provided for your information is our year-to-date on our real estate taxes through the third quarter. So far, we’re at 95%. On personal property through the third quarter, we are at 99% collected. And for excise, it’s 87%. Next steps: as I mentioned, we’ll be filing 68 foreclosure actions next month, and we expect to come back to you in June with further information and more specific recommendations worked out by the interdepartmental team and JER on how to further facilitate collection of these taxes.
AL: Did you have any idea...the excise is at 87%, is that like normal for the third quarter, or is that lower than you would expect?
DP: I apologize. I’ll have to get back to you on that. The treasurer collector is not in today, and specific questions like that I would have to rely on him to answer.
Abandoned Property
Moving on, on abandoned property efforts, the City has identified--and it’s a “rolling” list--right now there are approximately 251 properties on that list. Many of them are foreclosed properties. Many of them paid their taxes. Some of them are in fact city-owned properties;19 are city-owned. 142 are current on their taxes. 87 are...
AL: So they’ve paid their taxes, but the property is abandoned.
DP: Sometimes in some communities, frequently, they are due to a death in the family or they’ve been basically “land-banked,” and they’re just holding the property for some future sale assuming the numbers are going up.
And these numbers you see on your list in terms of the background of the properties, these don’t tally up; these are overlapping categories. 87 are single-family lots, and that’s very important, because those would be ones that we would focus on in terms of getting them back in re-use. If they’re vacant, if they’re abandoned, we would want to have owner-occupied homes built on those, and 83 are currently not buildable under the current zoning. And the city zoning in this regard, from what I understand so far, is not out of line. It is not that it’s highly restrictive; that’s normal in terms of communities in Massachusetts. We can look at that as we go forward in terms of how to use those lots. For many of these, though, the rehabilitation costs do exceed the property value. The cost of demolition and to rebuild exceeds what you can get out of it when you finally sell it.
Our strategy, though, for dealing with these 251 properties, which do include the foreclosed properties, and they do also include...the Springfield Redevelopment Authority has approximately 78 properties that it has held for a very long time and has not disposed of.
CVR: Is that in addition to the 251?
DP: Yes, it is. It’s approximately 78 in addition to the 251. We will be working with the...both on the foreclosed side, the abandoned side and on the SRA properties. This means that we’ll be working with the code enforcement director, the housing director, and the economic development director who works for the Springfield Redevelopment Agency, as a team to deal with them. It’s a four-pronged strategy. We’ll be selling the foreclosed and city-owned properties and SRA properties. We will be demolishing those buildings that need to be demolished. We will be ordering owners to clean up their properties or face demolition. We will be pursuing foreclosure on properties that have tax liens, and we will be using the building code to force property owners to remedy their properties in seeking enforcement in the court. A four-part strategy.
AL: If you demolish, does the cost of that demolition go against the owner, or is that just a city expense?
DP: The cost of the demolition may be liened against the property.
AL: It becomes another lien.
DP: It becomes another lien upon the property pursuable through foreclosure. Currently, right now, we have right now approximately 19 parcels identified that the city owns through foreclosure that are single-family home lots that are ready to go out for RFP next month. We will do this through an RFP process. We will be reviewing the quality of the proposals that come in. We will be focusing on owner occupied units, seeking to stabilize the neighborhood in the long term, and we have approximately 20 Springfield Redevelopment Authority properties that are also single family lots that will go out on the street in approximately the same time, one month. We will be continuing to roll through the portfolio as we investigate and as staff time allows.
AL: Does that depress the price if we put so many pieces of property out at the same time vs. ...? You know, can the housing market take that?
DP: The housing market in Springfield is fairly strong in terms of prices going up. In terms of developing an interest n the community, we’re working on having a large number of developers being able to take parcels, but in terms of being able to have a bang for our buck, make something happen, a dent in the market, we need to move large numbers of units. If we stay in the process that has happened in the past here which is moving 3 or 4 every quarter, we’ll only be producing 12 units. We will not get through our list, so our feeling is that at this point in time, in spite of the fact that there may be some depression which we do not expect to be significant, that is outweighed by the need to really get out there and get these properties dealt with.
Demolition
Second of all, demolition. We’re moving forward on two fronts on demolition. The Code Enforcement Commissioner, Steve Desilets has already demolished 31 structures in the past year and is working on 8 more. In addition, he is working with the housing director who is overseeing our demolition and revitalization of these properties in general. We’re looking at 50 properties in the city, on our list of 251, examining them and having code inspections be done on them to see if they should be demolished, providing notice to owners as appropriate, and then, if it need be demolished and the owner is not going to do so, we have identified a list right now of approximately 20 on that so far that should be demolished, and we will be coming back before you with specifics on that.
CVR: Mr. Chairman, this to me is one of the most serious problems in the whole city, and while David is talking of a list of 20, my own feeling is that it’s going to be ultimately far higher than that, because 7, 8, 9 months ago we were looking at 125 that should be demolished, and there’s nothing that’s more devastating to a neighborhood than a burned out building just sitting there with no action, and while David’s report talks about demolishing 31 structures in the past year, as far as I’m concerned, there really isn’t any money to go forward. And I’m hoping that when we create a bond strategy, that we will finally be able to address this need, because to me it’s one of the most profound. I don’t know how you restore neighborhoods unless the city moves forward aggressively and gets rid of these cancers.
DP: Just to demolish the 20 properties that we’re reviewing right now is approximately $1.5million...to give you a sense of scale.
After the building commissioner has a building survey commission, basically an independent review of the structural condition of the building, and those buildings that are determined not to be “demolishable” (that the demolition order cannot be issued), we’ll be pursuing them through tax collection and foreclosure, enforcement of the building code and ordinances, and we will also be looking to come back to you for funds to initiate a court appointed receiver, housing receivership program. A housing receivership program allowed by state law allows the city to move in with court order and put a receiver in place on the property to manage the property, collect rents, and repair the property, eventually, to turn it back over to an owner, but frequently it is an action of last resort when the owners have walked away. Our estimate on a court-appointed receivership program would be about $1.5million as well.
We have started, in terms of the demolitions focusing of the worst of the worst, and those that have no tax liens, because it is our expectation that those that do have tax liens we’ll be pursuing through foreclosure and we’ll also retain title to. We have 90 right now that have been identified as having tax liens, 27 which are in Land Court, 64 are slated for filing, and, finally, we have right now 122 on our list of 251 that have building code violations. That is all.
AL: That’s enough. Sounds like you’ve got your work cut out for you.
TR: David...I just...Mr. Chair? David I just have a question. Housing Court can be a slow process, and, as you know and I know, and it could be anywhere from a year to two years before a final judgment is given. Is there any way that this body or anybody in the state government can help us in expediting the process?
DP: We have begun those efforts. Let me talk about that for just a moment. We’ve begun working, for example, for directly with the register of the Land Court which does foreclosures in identifying the Springfield properties that are in the tax foreclosure process at the Land Court and expediting those. We expect to bring more attorneys on board to be able to work for those. We are coordinating with the law department very closely right now all of our building and housing enforcement actions and stepping up the process there. We have yet to make contact with the Housing Court specifically about doing that. That will be one of our next steps. I will say, that, based on my past experience in doing this in the city of Chelsea, that the first thing that needs to happen is we need to train and we need to train our code enforcement officers on how to prepare cases, how to present cases, and how to diligently pursue them in court, and work with our law department.
Once we take those actions, then usually the court and the judges recognize that you’re stepping up to the plate, and they will make their moves.
CVR: I might add to that that I’ve had several conversations over the last year with the judges of the Housing Court and have been informed by them as to how pleased they are with the caliber of the people that have been assigned to the court by the law department. As you indicate, that’s extremely important, and in the past, I think the city’s gone over there unprepared and came away with very unsatisfactory results, and so having able attorneys in the Housing Court is fundamental, and I think that’s being achieved right now.
Sidewalk school construction
AL: All right thank you. Thanks for the update. The next item is an approval of sidewalk school construction budget. Take it away.
PP: Yes, sir. There is an executive order in your package as well as in the list of specific sidewalks in your package. This list presented to you is the compilation of work by the school department, the police department, the department of public works to improve pedestrian, most particularly, student walking traffic to neighborhood schools. This is a planned construction budget for this calendar year of approximately $1.5million, and I think it represents approximately six linear miles of sidewalks to be constructed this year, and I would ask the board’s approval for this expenditure.
AL: So this would be to increase the sidewalks...these are non-existent sidewalks today, is that right? It’s not like up-grade, it’s like they don’t exist.
PP: I don’t know every single one, maybe the Mayor or if Mr. Chwalek is here....I believe that these are all new.
CVR: They are, and as the school committee has voted the change of boundary lines, and what it means is that many children will now be walking rather than riding...
AL: So this is a safety issue...
CVR: I think that we have a fundamental responsibility to make that walking experience far safer than being out in the streets, and so this is step one. I think, on the pages before you, the ones in the very dark print are this year’s program, and the ones in lighter print we would anticipate being done in calendar 2006.
AL: OK.
Jake Jacobson: Are both year’s expenditures included in the $1.5million that you mentioned?
PP: I believe this is just for...the $1.5million is just for...
JJ: Just the ones in bold are the ones we’re talking about.
AL: That would be done...
PP: And we’re ready to do the contracts tee’d up, and we’re ready to proceed with haste
AL: OK. Any other question on it? I guess we need a vote on this executive order.
* MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY
School Contract Negotiations
AL: Before we move on, I don’t know if you [indicates JJ] want to say anything or not, but I know, Jake, you’ve been involved with the school contracts, and since we’re talking about the school sidewalks, can you give us kind of an update on what’s happening on the school contracts before we move on to the police report?
JJ: Yeah. Would you like the one paragraph version or a longer version?
AL: Well, I’d like to have a complete version, but not so that we are here until midnight.
JJ: All right. Well, first of all, I’m not part of the negotiating team, so I want to say from the get-go that I’m gong to recount to you what I’m hearing. But I would say that, if I were going to give a short response, that I don’t think that we are yet talking clearly to each other. I think there is a lot of talking past each other, so I don’t think that we’re actually making much progress. I think from the city’s side, we are probably close to being prepared to file for mediation. We’re just not getting much done.
But, having said that, let me now provide some context. I think that would be warranted. Probably that could be characterized differently. Our strategy, of course, is: bring safe, clean streets with good schools, rising property values to Springfield within the financial means that Springfield has. That’s what we’re defining as our mission. And so, when we started to look at the school portion of it, it’s very complicated, and it took us a while to formulate a plan of how to proceed.
And, of course, the neighborhood schools that you just talked about was a key part, because cities don’t wither away all at once, they wither away a neighborhood at a time, and, likewise, we believe that is how they’ll come back. And the core of every neighborhood is the neighborhood elementary school. And that’s important as it relates to the contract, because we’ve said, “You know, the kids in Springfield aren’t being educated to proficiency, and that’s no one in particular’s fault; everyone has a hand in it.” And by “everyone,” I mean the parents have a hand in it, the administrators have a hand in it, and the teachers have a hand in it. And so, one of the economic realities in Springfield is that we’re not dealing with families that are three-car families, that they can zip across town if their child is in a school across town, so we have high hopes that with the new neighborhood school initiative, we’ll be able to get more involvement from parents, and parents will be able to shoulder more of the load that they should be shouldering.
Similarly, we will have in place with the administrators from the superintendent through the principals contract modifications where they’re responsible for results, and it’s very clear what they need to deliver, because, you know, the law states and it’s morally imperative that we get the children educated to proficiency. And to support that, not only will the contracts be modified, but there are new systems—financial systems and control systems going in--and we’re looking at all kinds of costs that we can save. We’re trying to put better tools in the hands of the teachers, and we’re going to hope in this up-coming budget to buy $1million of textbooks. It’s been a long time since Springfield spent $1million on textbooks.
We’re going to try to expand the pre-school program for those kids that are most in need so that they won’t start behind—and that’s not a day care program, that’s real school so that kids can start school at the level that they should. And this summer, we’re going to fund an expanded summer school program to help kids stay caught up.
And so, so that’s a second leg on the administrative side, and putting tools in teachers’ hands, and then we get to the teachers. And I give you this preamble, because, in my opinion, I think, here’s where the disconnect is happening, that we then challenged the superintendent and his staff to develop a contract that they felt they would require if the students were going to get educated to proficiency, if the kids were going to learn. And they put that together, and I think one could have a position that there’s pluses and minuses to it, depending on where you sit, but I think that everyone would agree that it’s a very, very different kind of contract than the previous contract, because it actually is geared to getting the kids educated. It’s exclusively focused on that.
And, you know, the approach that, therefore, the negotiators have taken is to say, “Here’s our proposal. We will, in fact, delete anything in this proposal that you can convince us doesn’t lead to the students becoming more proficient in learning. Similarly, we will incorporate those ideas that you have that are better than what we have here in terms of getting the students to proficiency.”
And I just think that that is such a different approach from traditional bargaining that, you know, the kindest way I could say it is that, perhaps because it’s quite different in approach, it’s taking the parties a while to settle in and get going. That would be the kindest thing I could say, but if I were just going to objectively evaluate the progress to date, I would say there’s been precious little progress. And September approaches,and so, you know, we’ve got to move.
AL: Thank you. It’s just an update, so keep at it. All right, we don’t need any votes on that or anything, so next on the agenda is to have a presentation by Carroll Buracker and Associates on this [slaps thick binder] report that was just delivered to us on the Springfield Police Department, so ....
[End of partial transcript]